Published March 23, 2011
Communism , Countries/Regions , Lukacs , Marxism , Philosophy , Politics , Russia
Tags: communism, george lukacs, gyorgy lukacs, lukacs, luxemburg, Marxism, rosa luxemburg, Russia
Russian peasants in 1918 during a period of numerous peasant revolts against their previously untouchable landlords (source: http://www.soviethistory.org/ )
On a critique of Rosa Luxemburg‘s (1871-1919) “Critrique of the Russian Revolution” György Lukács points out the mistake of just solely focusing on the proletariat in countries that are majority non-proletarian, such as Russia, which had been mostly peasant and feudal based.
[Her essay] consists in the overestimation of its purely proletarian character, and therefore the overestimation both of the external power and the inner clarity and maturity that the proletarian class can possess and in fact did possess in the first phase of the revolution. And at the same time we as a corollary the underestimation of the importance of the non-proletarian elements in the revolution. And this includes the non-proletarian elements outside as well as the power wielded by such idologies within the proletariat itself. And this false assessment of the true driving forces leads to the decisive point of her misinterpretation: to the underplyaing of the role of the party in revolution and of its conscious political action, as opposed to the necessity of being driven along by the elemental forces of economic development (274-5).
Lukács, György. 1971. Translated by Rodney Livingstone. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
In his work History and Class Consciousness György Lukács (1885-1971) wrote:
In his celebrated account of historical materialism Engels proceeds from the assumption that although the essence of history consists in the fact that “nothing happens without a conscious purpose or an intended aim”, to understand history it is necessary to go further than this. For on the one hand, “the many individual wills active in history for the most part produce results quite other than those intended–often quite the opposite; their motives, therefore, in relation to the total result are likewise of only secondary importance. On the other hand, the further question arises: what driving forces in turn stand behind these motives? What are the historical causes which transform themselves into these motives in the brain of the actors?” He goes on to argue that these driving forces ought themselves to be determined, in particular those which “set in motion great masses, whole peoples and again whole classes of the people; and which create a lasting action resulting in a great transformation.” The essence of scientific Marxism consists, then, in the realisation that the real motor forces of history are independent of man’s (psychological) consciousness of them (46-47).
Lukács, Georg. 1971. Translated by Rodney Livingstone. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.